The ITAT Dehradun ruled that deposits in employees’ bank accounts, even when handled by the business, cannot be treated as the employer’s unexplained income under Section 69A. Following a precedent in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal confirmed these amounts belong to the employees.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable for non-payment of self-assessment tax even if later it was concluded that there was no tax payable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction because the necessary approval for the Section 148 notice, issued for A.Y. 2017-18 after three years, was obtained from the wrong authority. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the invalid approval under Section 151 vitiates the entire reassessment process.
The ITAT ruled the reassessment void because the AO failed to verify Insight data against the taxpayer’s filed return, leading to a factual mismatch and generic reasons for reopening. The decision confirms that mechanical satisfaction based on unverified information lacks the “live link” required for a valid Section 147 jurisdiction.
The case was remanded for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s claim that a significant Nazarana/fees paid to the Municipal Corporation should be included in the property’s cost. The ITAT directed the AO to verify all factual claims related to the cost of acquisition and the date of agreement for correct valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed additions totaling over ₹4.78 crore for unexplained partners’ capital and unsecured loans. The Tribunal ruled that the firm failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by relying on unaudited and unsubstantiated documents.
This case addresses the mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and income shown in the P&L account, which led to an addition for suppressed receipts. ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, relying on the SC ruling in TRF Ltd. to confirm that the company’s action of reversing the unrecovered billing as irrecoverable was a legitimate write-off, thus making the addition unjustified.
The ITAT restored an NRI’s tax appeal, accepting the argument that non-compliance before the lower authorities was not deliberate, as the taxpayer was abroad and faced difficulties accessing records during the pandemic. The Tribunal ruled that the appeal should be decided on its merits, setting aside the ex-parte order and directing the AO to verify the factual claims regarding the assessment year and capital gains.
A reassessment order was challenged because the Section 148 notice was issued in the name of the assessee who had died a year earlier. The ITAT ruled that a notice issued to a deceased or non-existent person is non est in law, deeming the assumption of jurisdiction and the entire reassessment process void ab initio.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment proceedings, declaring the assessment order void ab initio due to critical procedural failures, including the use of a manual DIN and jurisdictional violation of the Faceless Assessment regime. This ruling affirms the mandatory nature of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for all tax orders.
